Assessment of vulnerability and resilience of school education to climate-induced hazards: a review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Components of the education sector. Source: Authors.

Figure 2. Populations affected by natural hazards by national income bracket: 1998–2017 (UNISDR 2017).

Figure 3. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) Framework (Moher et al. 2009) was applied to this review study.

Table 1. Flood events and their impacts on the education system.

2012	Thailand	2,600 schools and 700,000 students and teachers were affected by floods in Bangkok. Damage to educational facilities was worth est. USD 224 million.
2010	Pakistan	Flood partially or completely destroyed 10,348 educational structures, of which 9,368 were primary schools.
2010, 2005, 2004	England	Schools were flooded, closed, and disrupted, respectively.
2007	Assam, India	150,000 people evacuated to schools during the flood.
2004	Bangladesh	1,259 schools were lost to the flood and 24,236 schools were damaged.
2000	Cambodia	500,000 to one million students were affected by the flood with 1000–2000 schools in eight provinces affected.

Sources: Compiled from Shah et al. (2018a), Ngenyam Bang and Church Burton (2021), and Bastidas and Petal (2012)

Table 2. Major cyclones and their impacts on the education system.

Year	Area	Impact
2019	Odisha, India	Cyclone Fani destroyed 6,498 schools.
2010	Philippines	28 schools were completely damaged during Super Typhoon Megi and 63 schools were used as evacuation centers disrupting education continuity.
2009	Philippines	Tropical storm Ketsana damaged 78 schools completely and around 122 schools were used as evacuation centers.
2009	Taiwan	682 schools were destroyed by typhoon Morakot.
2009	Bangladesh	Almost all primary schools in the coastal areas incurred 90%−100% damage to buildings, furniture, and materials. Schools were closed for 9 months.
2008	Myanmar	Cyclone Nargis destroyed 2,460 schools completely and damaged 750 schools severely.
2007	Bangladesh	Cyclone Sidr destroyed 496 school buildings and damaged 2,110 partially.
2006	Philippines	Super Typhoon Durian caused USD 20 million damage to thousands of primary and secondary school buildings and daycare centers, including 90-100% of school buildings in three cities and 50-60% of school buildings in two other cities. Schooling of hundreds of thousands of children was affected.
2005	USA	Hurricane Katrina destroyed 56 schools and damaged 1,162. About 700 schools were closed and 372,000 children were displaced.

Sources: Compiled from Bastidas and Petal (2012), Indiatoday (2019), and Parvin et al. (2022).

Table 3. Major Earthquakes and Tsunami and their impacts on the education system.

2018	Lombok, Indonesia Earthquake	1194 schools were damaged, of which 639 were elementary schools
2017	Iran	Damaged hundreds of schools in the Kermanshah province
2011	Japan	In the Japan Earthquake and tsunami, 733 students and teachers died, 193 schools were destroyed, 747 schools were significantly damaged, and 5064 school incurred minor damage.
2010	Chile	School damage was estimated at USD 2.1 billion out of USD 30 billion infrastructure damage in total.
2010	Haiti	Estimated 4000 students and 700 teachers died at school; 4800 schools were damaged or destroyed; and around 15,000 primary schools and 1,500 secondary schools were affected. The overall impact collapsed the school system with 6,000,000 children out of school even after two years.
2009	Sumatra, Indonesia	2164 schools were severely damaged and 1447 schools were moderately damaged in Western Sumatra, concentrated in Padang city.
2008	Sichuan, China	10,000 students died at school and 7000 classrooms were destroyed.
2007	Pisco, Peru	Schools were destroyed but those schools that were built to new codes with combination frames, 3 feet shear walls every 15 feet, and infill walls with self-supporting frames that were separated by one-inch elastic materials withstood during the quake.
2005	Northern Pakistan, Kashmir	17,000 students and 900 teachers died at school, 50,000 were seriously injured, and many were disabled. 10,000 school buildings were destroyed. 300,000 children were affected. In some districts, 80% of schools were destroyed.
2004	Indian Ocean	Tsunami destroyed 750 schools and damaged 2135 schools in Indonesia, destroyed 51 schools in Sri Lanka, 44 in Maldives, and 30 in Thailand.
2003	Bingol, Turkey	84 students and teachers died, 4 schools collapsed, 90% of schools were impacted, and education was disrupted though the event was at moderate level.
2003	Bam, Iran	67 schools collapsed, 10,000 school children and 1,200 teachers died, and 32,000 students were affected.
2001	Bhuj, India	1,884 schools collapsed, destroying 5,950 classrooms including 78% of public secondary schools. 11,761 school buildings suffered major damage with 36,584 classrooms unusable.

Sources: Compiled from Bastidas and Petal (2012), Hassan et al. (2012), Samadian et al. (2020), Wilkinson et al. (2009)

Table 4. Indicators of flood vulnerability assessment.

Exposure	Sensitivity	Adaptive Capacity
• Location (proximity to flood areas) • Impervious surface • Combined water systems • Flooding history	• Basement • Outdoor basement stairs • Low-lying electric equipment • Low-lying heat equipment • Low elevator shaft • Share of residence in risk group	• Information on preventive measures • Flood warning system • Emergency management group • Pumping equipment • Access to food and water • Access to emergency vehicle • Ability to contact parents/relatives

Sources: Compiled from Opach et al. (2020), Membele, Naidu, and Mutanga (2022), and Uddin et al. (2019)

Table 5. Indicators for earthquake vulnerability assessment.

Exposure	Sensitivity and Adaptive Capacity
• Local soil property • Local geology • Slope of area	• Types of infrastructure (masonry > wooden > concrete) • Epoch (age) of infrastructure • Height of the building • Plan irregularity or shape of the building • Vertical irregularity of the building • Knowledge of risk

Sources: Compiled from Hossain et al. (2014) and Ravankhah, Schmidt, and Will (2021)

Table 6. Vulnerability indicators for cyclones.

Exposure	Sensitivity	Adaptive Capacity
• Elevation • Slope • Proximity to coastline • Proximity to cyclone track • Land use and land cover	• Population density • Dependent population • Wooden structure • Disable population • Literacy rate • Agriculture dependent population	• Distance to cyclone shelter • Distance to health infrastructure • Proximity to coastal vegetation • Cyclone warning system • Embankment • Road network

Sources: Hoque et al. (2021) and Uddin et al. (2019)

Figure 4. The Pressure and Release Model. Source: Adapted from Dwiningrum, Prihastuti, and Suwarjo (2019).

Table 7. Indicators for safe schools.

Indicators for School Site and Building Safety	Indicators for Education Continuity Plans
• School sites away from hazard-prone areas • Building meets performance standards • Adherence to building codes • Construction follows multi-hazard guidelines • Proper access to roads and bridges • Availability of clean water and sanitary toilet facilities	• Alternate school sites during and after disaster • Mutual aid plans with neighboring schools • Plans for proper storage of enrollment and educational records • Alternate means of instructions • Availability of transportation facility • Alternate water and power sources • Coordination with other schools and working groups

Source: Shah et al. (2018a)

Figure 5. School disaster assessment indicators. Source: Adapted from Wang (2020).

Figure 6. CSS Framework Concept for School Safety. Source: Modified from UNESCO (2013).

Table 8. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-2030: The four priorities for actions.

Priority		Description
1.	Understanding disaster risk	Disaster risk management should be based on the understanding of disaster risk in all dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics, and environments. Such knowledge can be used for risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response.
2.	Priority strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk	Disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and global levels is important for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation. It fosters collaboration and partnership.
3.	Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience	Public and private investment in disaster risk prevention and reduction through structural and nonstructural measures is essential to enhance the economic, social, health, and cultural resilience of persons, communities, countries, and their assets, as well as environments
4.	Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to ‘Build Back Better’ in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction	The growth of disaster risk means that there is a need to strengthen disaster preparedness for response, take action in anticipation of events, and ensure capacities are in place for effective response and recovery at all levels. The recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phase is a critical opportunity to build back better, including through integrating DRR into development measures.

Source: Dwiningrum (2019).

Figure 7. Flowchart explaining how education influences disaster preparedness and its interplay with disaster experience. Source: Hoffmann and Muttarak (2017).

Figure 8. Feed-back Model: Components of vulnerability.

UNISDR. 2017. Economic Losses, Poverty and Disasters 1998-2017.

 Google Scholar

Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and for the PRISMA Group. 2009. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” Annals of Internal Medicine 151 (4): 264–269. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shah, A. A., J. Ye, M. Abid, J. Khan, and S. M. Amir. 2018a. “Flood Hazards: Household Vulnerability and Resilience in Disaster-Prone Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan.” Natural Hazards 93 (1): 147–165. doi:10.1007/s11069-018-3293-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ngenyam Bang, H., and N. Church Burton. 2021. “Contemporary Flood Risk Perceptions in England: Implications for Flood Risk Management Foresight.” Climate Risk Management 32 (May): 100317. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2021.100317.

 Google Scholar

Bastidas, P., and M. Petal. 2012. “Assessing school safety from disasters. A global baseline report.” ISDR Thematic Platform for Knowledge and Education 103. www.unisdr.org/files/35274_2012schoolsafetyglobalbaseline.pdf

 Google Scholar

Indiatoday. 2019. 6,498 schools damaged in Cyclone Fani in Odisha.

 Google Scholar

Parvin, G. A., N. Takashino, S. Islam, H. Rahman, M. A. Abedin, and R. Ahsan. 2022. “Disaster-induced Damage to Primary Schools and Subsequent Knowledge Gain: Case Study of the Cyclone Aila-Affected Community in Bangladesh.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 72 (October 2021): 102838. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102838.

 Google Scholar

Hassan, B. A. R., Z. B. M. Yusoff, M. A. H. Othman, and S. Bin. information is Available at the end of the Chapter, A., & 105772/55358 (2012). We are IntechOpen, the world’s leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists TOP 1%. Intech, 13.

 Google Scholar

Samadian, D., M. Eghbali, M. Raissi Dehkordi, and M. Ghafory-Ashtiany. 2020. “Recovery and Reconstruction of Schools After M 7.3 Ezgeleh-Sarpole-Zahab Earthquake of Nov. 2017; Part I: Structural and Nonstructural Damages After the Earthquake.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (June): 106305. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106305.

 Google Scholar

Wilkinson, S., J. Alarcon, R. Mulyani, J. Whittle, and D. S. C. Chian. 2009. The Padang, Sumatra - Indonesia Earthquake of 30 September 2009 a Field Report By Eefit. Management, September, 85.

 Google Scholar

Opach, T., E. Glaas, M. Hjerpe, and C. Navarra. 2020. “Vulnerability Visualization to Support Adaptation to Heat and Floods: Towards the EXTRA Interactive Tool in Norrköping, Sweden.” Sustainability 12. doi:10.3390/su12031179.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Membele, G. M., M. Naidu, and O. Mutanga. 2022. “Examining Flood Vulnerability Mapping Approaches in Developing Countries: A Scoping Review.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (December 2021): 102766. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102766.

 Google Scholar

Uddin, M. N., A. K. M. Saiful Islam, S. K. Bala, G. M. T. Islam, S. Adhikary, D. Saha, S. Haque, M. G. R. Fahad, and R. Akter. 2019. “Mapping of Climate Vulnerability of the Coastal Region of Bangladesh Using Principal Component Analysis.” Applied Geography 102 (December 2018): 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.12.011.

 Google Scholar

Hossain, R., Sheikh, B., Rahman, M., Science, M. B., & Ansary, M. (2014). Earthquake vulnerability assessment in schools and colleges of Tangail municipality. January 2017.

 Google Scholar

Ravankhah, M., Schmidt, M., & Will, T. (2021). An Indicator-Based Risk Assessment Framework for World Heritage Sites in Seismic Zones: The Case of “Bam and its Cultural Landscape” in Iran. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63(January), 102405. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102405

 Google Scholar

Hoque, M. A. A., B. Pradhan, N. Ahmed, B. Ahmed, and A. M. Alamri. 2021. “Cyclone Vulnerability Assessment of the Western Coast of Bangladesh.” Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 12 (1): 198–221. doi:10.1080/19475705.2020.1867652.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dwiningrum, S. I.A., Prihastuti, P., and Suwarjo, S. (2019). Disaster Mitigation in School Resilience Perspectives. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 271(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/271/1/011001

 Google Scholar

Wang, J. J. 2020. “Promoting School’s Recovery and Resilience After the Chi-Chi Earthquake.” Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 29 (4): 609–627. doi:10.1108/DPM-09-2019-0311.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

UNESCO. 2013. Comprehensive school safety.

 Google Scholar

Hoffmann, R., and R. Muttarak. 2017. “Learn from the Past, Prepare for the Future: Impacts of Education and Experience on Disaster Preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand.” World Development 96: 32–51. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.016.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar